On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I read that somewhere, but then every example shows 256k as being the strip
size :( Now, with a 5 drives RAID5 array (which I'll be moving that server
to over the next couple of weeks), 256k isn't an issue? or is there
something better i should set
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Feb 9, 2005, at 6:34 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Most odd, there definitely has to be a problem with the Dual-Xeon ysystem
... doing the same vmstat on my other vinum based system, running more, but
on a Dual-PIII shows major idle time:
#
On Feb 9, 2005, at 6:34 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Most odd, there definitely has to be a problem with the Dual-Xeon
ysystem ... doing the same vmstat on my other vinum based system,
running more, but on a Dual-PIII shows major idle time:
# vmstat 5
procs memory page
Most odd, there definitely has to be a problem with the Dual-Xeon ysystem
... doing the same vmstat on my other vinum based system, running more,
but on a Dual-PIII shows major idle time:
# vmstat 5
procs memory pagedisks faults cpu
r b w avmfre
still getting this:
# vmstat 5
procs memory pagedisks faults cpu
r b w avmfre flt re pi po fr sr da0 da1 in sy cs us sy id
11 2 0 3020036 267944 505 2 1 1 680 62 0 0 515 4005 918 7 38 55
19 2 0 3004568 268672 242 0 0 0
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Mark A. Garcia wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Self-followup .. the server config is as follows ... did I do maybe
mis-configure the array?
# Vinum configuration of neptune.hub.org, saved at Wed Feb 9 00:13:52 2005
drive d0 device /dev/da1s1a
drive d1 device /dev/da2s1a
drive
Olivier Nicole wrote:
All servers run RAID5 .. only one other is using vinum, the other 3 are
using hardware RAID controllers ...
Come on, of course a software solution will be slower than an hardware
solution. What would you expect? :))
(Given it is same disk type/speed/controler...)
Usu
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Self-followup .. the server config is as follows ... did I do maybe
mis-configure the array?
# Vinum configuration of neptune.hub.org, saved at Wed Feb 9 00:13:52
2005
drive d0 device /dev/da1s1a
drive d1 device /dev/da2s1a
drive d2 device /dev/da3s1a
drive d3 device /de
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 02:32:30AM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> Is there a command that I can run that provide me the syscall/sec value,
> that I could use in a script? I know vmstat reports it, but is there an
> easier way the having to parse the output? a perl module maybe, that
> alre
Is there a command that I can run that provide me the syscall/sec value,
that I could use in a script? I know vmstat reports it, but is there an
easier way the having to parse the output? a perl module maybe, that
already does it?
Thanks ...
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Tue,
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Dan Nelson wrote:
Details on the array's performance, I think. Software RAID5 will
definitely have poor write performance (logging disks solve that
problem but vinum doesn't do that), but should have excellent read
rates. From this output, however:
systat -v output help:
4
In the last episode (Feb 09), Marc G. Fournier said:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> >On Tuesday, 8 February 2005 at 23:21:54 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >>I have a Dual-Xeon server with 4G of RAM, with its primary file
> >>system consisting of 4x73G SCSI drives running RAI
The more I'm looking at this, the less I can believe my 'issue' is with
vinum ... based on one of my other machines, it just doesn't *feel* right
I have two servers that are fairly similar in config ... both running
vinum RAID5 over 4 disks ... one is the Dual-Xeon that I'm finding
"probl
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 February 2005 at 23:21:54 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I have a Dual-Xeon server with 4G of RAM, with its primary file system
consisting of 4x73G SCSI drives running RAID5 using vinum ... the
operating system is currently FreeBSD 4.10-
Self-followup .. the server config is as follows ... did I do maybe
mis-configure the array?
# Vinum configuration of neptune.hub.org, saved at Wed Feb 9 00:13:52 2005
drive d0 device /dev/da1s1a
drive d1 device /dev/da2s1a
drive d2 device /dev/da3s1a
drive d3 device /dev/da4s1a
volume vm
plex n
> All servers run RAID5 .. only one other is using vinum, the other 3 are
> using hardware RAID controllers ...
Come on, of course a software solution will be slower than an hardware
solution. What would you expect? :))
(Given it is same disk type/speed/controler...)
Olivier
__
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Olivier Nicole wrote:
and it performs worse then any of
my other servers, and I have less running on it then the other servers ...
What are you other servers? What RAID system/level?
All servers run RAID5 .. only one other is using vinum, the other 3 are
using hardware RAID con
On Tuesday, 8 February 2005 at 23:21:54 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> I have a Dual-Xeon server with 4G of RAM, with its primary file system
> consisting of 4x73G SCSI drives running RAID5 using vinum ... the
> operating system is currently FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE #1: Fri Oct 22 15:06:55
> ADT 20
> and it performs worse then any of
> my other servers, and I have less running on it then the other servers ...
What are you other servers? What RAID system/level?
Of course a software RAID5 is slower than a plain file system on a
disk.
Olivier
___
f
I have a Dual-Xeon server with 4G of RAM, with its primary file system
consisting of 4x73G SCSI drives running RAID5 using vinum ... the
operating system is currently FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE #1: Fri Oct 22 15:06:55
ADT 2004 ... swap usage is 0% (6149) ... and it performs worse then any of
my other
20 matches
Mail list logo
